Video games are not art

Certainly, there are differing variables. But are there any attributes, in your opinion, that appear to be consistent amongst every single piece (or perhaps a majority of) ?

 

Effort.

If it's not there, it isn't art.

 

This is why I think that both Arcanum and Planescape Torment qualify as art.

 

It's in museums. Honestly I've never had one of those Ferris Bueller art museum epiphanies, but generally, what I like to look at is art. If I don't like it, it's not art. This is how my system works. I'm black and white. Because I can make these kinds of decisions, that means everybody can, and if everyone can decide whether something is art, then anything has the capacity to be considered art.
I consider something like a spiderweb to be art. So intricate in construction, and it's so pleasing to the eye. Natural art. At least, that's what I call it. Along with canyons and various other natural awes.

 

Would you classify naked children as art?

 

Actually, if they were taken with the intent of creating a work of art, they actually would be. Just because it's morally reprehensible doesn't mean it's not artistic.

 

I wouldn't. Someone might.

 

Is all beauty also art, therefore, in your opinion?

 

Not ugly children.

 

I guess so.

 

Two more questions for you Gross:

Is all beauty deliberately produced?
Is all art deliberately produced?




Also, these fine gentlemen (and/or one woman) also see video games as art. Their reviews reflect real insight in to the epitome of gaming:

http://navgtr.org/id1.html

 

No and no. When ever I produce something that's beautiful and/or artistic, it's never by choice. It's all by circumstance.

 

The only attribute true for all art is that someone considers it 'art'.

So the only truly workable definition is: It's art if someone, anyone, deems it so, for any reason. The only way to have an objective definition of art is to make it so broad that it becomes meaningless.

Anyway, people who make grand declarations of what they don't consider art are just masturbating their egos with a numb hand. You'll probably find they're intolerant of other people's opinions in general.

 

Not necessarily. To this statement I pose the following question:


Can something be more beautiful than another?


Consequently:

Can something which is ugly be art?

That which is without purposeful effectuation has beauty?

Said in another manner:

Does something have to have purposeful effectuation to truly be beautiful?

Consequently:

Is chaos beautiful?

But art does have meaning, does it not? If it did not have a shred of an anchor of definition to what it really is in reality....then perhaps this word would not exist. Certainly there is a consensus among men that art exists....but what is it? If it is subjective, then it could not exist. A figment of mere imagination not anchored in reality.